DOCSLIB.ORG

Biographical Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biographical Data BIOGRAPHICAL DATA WASHINGTON, D.C. MAY 13-15, 2012 BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Global Summit On Merit Review • Biographical Data Washington, DC • May 13-15, 2012 Countries Represented Argentina....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Australia ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Austria ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Belgium ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Brazil .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Canada .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Chile .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 China ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Czech Republic .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Denmark ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Egypt ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Estonia ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 European Union ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Finland ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 France............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Germany ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Hungary ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 India .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Indonesia ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Ireland ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Israel .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Italy ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Japan ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Korea ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Luxembourg ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Malaysia ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Mexico ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Netherlands................................................................................................................................................. 11 New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Norway ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Poland ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Portugal ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Russia .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Saudi Arabia ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Science Europe ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Singapore .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Slovenia ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Sweden ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Switzerland .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Thailand ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................................... 15 United States ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Vietnam ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Organizations Represented Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy ............................................................................................ 17 American Association for the Advancement of Science ............................................................................. 17 Department of State ................................................................................................................................... 17 European Science Foundation .................................................................................................................... 18 Institute of Medicine ................................................................................................................................... 18 National Academy of Engineering............................................................................................................... 18 National Academy of Sciences .................................................................................................................... 19 National Institutes of Health ....................................................................................................................... 19 National Institute of Standards and Technology ........................................................................................ 20 National Science Board ............................................................................................................................... 20 National Science Foundation ...................................................................................................................... 20 Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science ....................................................................................... 21 Office of Science and Technology Policy ..................................................................................................... 21 TWAS: The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World ...................................................................... 22 U.S. Agency for International Development ............................................................................................... 22 A Message from Subra Suresh Director, National Science Foundation (NSF) May 14, 2012 I am pleased to welcome you to the Global Summit on Merit Review, the inaugural meeting of the Global
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Featured News
    October 31, 2017 Volume 36, Issue 21 Subscribe to Update In This Issue FEATURED NEWS COSSA Joins Societies in Requesting Changes to NIH Clinical Trial Policy CONG RESSIONAL NEWS Rand Paul Introduces Bill to "Reform" Federal Research Grant System Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Indirect Costs of Research FEDERAL AG ENCY & ADMINISTRATION NEWS William Beach, Former Budget Committee Economist, Nominated as BLS Commissioner GAO to Study Potential Federal Interference in Science NSF's Statistical Division Seeks Director GAO Report on Firearm Storage Highlights Lack of Federal Funding for Gun Research PUBLICATIONS & COMMUNITY EVENTS CNSTAT Issues Report on Federal Statistics, Multiple Data Sources, and Privacy Protection NDD United Highlights Impacts of Budget Cuts in Faces of Austerity 2.0 Report COSSA MEMBER SPOTLIG HT John Holdren Wins 2018 Moynihan Prize SRCD Accepting Application for Federal, State Policy Fellowships EVENTS CALENDAR FEATURED NEWS COSSA Joins Societies in Requesting Changes to NIH Clinical Trial Policy In a letter sent to National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins on October 27, COSSA and 21 other scientific societies and associations requested that NIH revisit a new policy that alters the definition of "clinical trials" funded by the agency and institutes new reporting requirements for such research (see COSSA's coverage of this issue). While the letter is supportive of the goal of enhancing transparency of NIH-funded research, including introducing registration and reporting requirements, the signatories express concern that "basic science research is being redefined as a clinical trial at NIH and that "basic science investigators will be unnecessarily burdened with requirements relating to conducting clinical trials that have nothing to do with their own research." The organizations hope to work with NIH leadership to find a solution that addresses the concerns of the basic science community while still improving transparency for true clinical trial research.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Session Minutes, May 2014
    NSB-14-48 APPROVED MINUTES1 OPEN SESSION 437TH MEETING NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia August 13-14, 2014 Members Present: Members Absent: Dan E. Arvizu, Chairman Vinton G. Cerf Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Vice Chairman Alan I. Leshner John L. Anderson Robert J. Zimmer Deborah L. Ball Bonnie L. Bassler** Roger N. Beachy Arthur Bienenstock Vicki L. Chandler Ruth David Inez Fung Robert M. Groves James S. Jackson G. Peter Lepage W. Carl Lineberger Stephen Mayo** Sethuraman Panchanathan G.P. “Bud” Peterson*,** Geraldine Richmond Anneila I. Sargent Diane L. Souvaine* Maria Zuber France A. Córdova, ex officio 1 The minutes of the 437th meeting were approved by the Board at the November 2014 meeting. *Consultant **Absent from reconvened Plenary Open Session held on August 14, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. 1 The National Science Board (Board, NSB) convened in Open Session on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. with Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman, presiding (Agenda NSB-14-37, Board Book page 307). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public. AGENDA ITEM 1: Presentation by Waterman Award Recipient Dr. Feng Zhang, recipient of the 2014 Alan T. Waterman Award, gave a presentation to the Board, entitled, “Development and Application of Crispr-cas9 for Genome Editing” (Board Book Addendum). Dr. Zhang is a W. M. Keck Career Development Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Core Member at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University, and Investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT (Board Book page 309).
    [Show full text]
  • Featured News
    June 23, 2020 Volume 39, Issue 13 Subscribe to COSSA Washington Update | Subscribe to Members-Only Emails from COSSA In This Issue FEATURED NEWS White House Issues Ban on Entry of Skilled Foreign Workers Notable COVID-19 Resources COSSA IN ACTION Letters & Statements CONGRESSIONAL NEWS Policing Research Bill Introduced as Congress Continues Focus on Police Reform FEDERAL AGENCY & ADMINISTRATION NEWS Sethuraman Panchanathan Confirmed as Next NSF Director Nomination Opportunities Funding Opportunities Notices & Requests for Comment Recent Reports Open Positions COMMUNITY NEWS & REPORTS SEAN Releases Rapid Consultation on Evaluating Types of COVID-19 Data Scientific Community Responds to Racism and Police Violence through #ShutDownSTEM Campaign Nomination Opportunities COSSA MEMBER SPOTLIGHT SPSP Names New Executive Director EVENTS CALENDAR FEATURED NEWS White House Issues Ban on Entry of Skilled Foreign Workers On June 22, President Trump issued a proclamation further extending restrictions on foreign travel to the United States in order to reduce the competitiveness of the U.S. labor market. The proclamation argues that due to the economic downturn and resulting unemployment caused by the coronavirus pandemic, foreign workers "pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers." The proclamation prohibits the entry of foreign workers under several visa categories commonly used by science and academic institutions to hire employees with unique skills and specialized training, including H-1B and H-4 visas, for skilled workers and their spouses respectively; J-1 visas, for scholarly and other cultural exchanges; most H-2B visas, for nonagricultural workers; and L-1 visas, for foreign employees of companies to transfer to U.S. locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Peters Curriculum Vitae
    Prof. Dr. iur. Anne Peters, LL.M. (Harvard), Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Anne Peters Curriculum Vitae Personal Born on 15 November 1964 in Berlin. Married, two children. German and Swiss citizenship. Education 2000: Habilitation at the Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Germany. and Subject of the Habilitation thesis: “Elemente einer Theorie der Verfassung Degrees Europas” (Elements of a Theory of the Constitution of Europe). 1995: Master of Laws (LL.M.), Harvard Law School, Cambridge, USA. 1994: Doctorate in law, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany. Subject of the dissertation: “Das gebietsbezogene Referendum im Völkerrecht im Licht der Staatenpraxis nach 1989” (Territorial Referendums in Public International Law with a View to the State Practice after 1989). 1993: Second State Exam (bar qualification) (Zweite juristische Staatsprüfung, Baden-Württemberg). 1990: First State Exam (university degree) (Erste juristische Staatsprüfung, Baden-Württemberg). 1986 - 1990: Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany: Studies in Law, Spanish, and Modern Greek. 1985 - 1986: University of Lausanne, Switzerland: Studies in International Law. 1984 - 1985: Julius-Maximilians-University of Würzburg, Germany: Studies in Law, Modern Greek literature and language. Professional Since 2017: L. Bates Lea Global Law Professor at the Law School of the Experience University of Michigan. 2016: Visiting Professor and PKU Global Fellowship scholar at Peking University Law School. 2016: Helen L. DeRoy Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of Michigan Law School. 2015: Visiting Professor at Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I) – Institut de recherche en droit international et européen de la Sorbonne (IREDIES). Since 25 August 2015: Professor (Honorarprofessorin) at the Freie Universität Berlin.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?
    1 Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? 1 2 3 2 Tony Ross-Hellauer , Birgit Schmidt , and Bianca Kramer 1 3 Know-Center, Austria, (corres. author: [email protected]) 2 4 Goettingen State and University Library, Germany 3 5 Utrecht University Library, Netherlands 6 May 23, 2018 1 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 23 May 2018, publ: 23 May 2018 7 Abstract 8 As open access to publications continues to gather momentum we should continu- 9 ously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this 10 space is the creation of open access publishing platforms commissioned by funding or- 11 ganisations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, 12 as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commis- 13 sion and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it 14 becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent 15 phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This 16 article examines ethical, organisational and economic strengths and weaknesses of such 17 platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats 18 presented by funder open access platforms in the ongoing transition to open access. The 19 article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, 20 finding them a novel intervention which stand to help increase OA uptake, control costs 21 of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commit- 22 ment to fostering open practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility
    Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility A report prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier’s SciVal Analytics September 2013 2 3 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & KEY FINDINGS 4 INTRODUCTION 6 CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH COLLABORATION IN EUROPE AND THE US 9 Introduction 10 1.1 Research collaboration patterns in Europe and the US 10 1.2 Research collaboration impact in Europe and the US 15 1.3 Research collaboration networks within Europe and the US 18 1.4 Research collaboration in detail: case studies for the Netherlands, 22 Switzerland, Czech Republic, Turkey, Albania and fyr Macedonia CHAPTER 2: RESEARCHER MOBILITY IN EUROPE AND THE US 29 Introduction 30 2.1 Researcher mobility classes in Europe and the US 30 2.2 Researcher mobility and impact in Europe and the US 34 CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSIONS 37 APPENDIX A: Country and state abbreviations 40 APPENDIX B: Methodology 43 APPENDIX C: Collaboration pairs 44 Authors 46 About 46 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research Collaboration and Researcher Mobility This report focuses on the extent to which research col- Europe are likely to collaborate with researchers outside laboration and researcher mobility patterns differ between Europe. This is important as ‘outside region’ collaboration Europe and the US, based on analysis of the Scopus pub- has the greatest citation benefit – in fact the additional lication database 1. This comparison is made by exploring benefit of collaborating outside region is proportionally both the extent to which academics collaborate on research greater for European researchers than for US research- papers and the amount of researcher mobility within Europe ers.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Guide to Sustainable Research
    SCIENCE EUROPE PRACTICAL GUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE RESEARCH DATA Maturity Matrices for Research Funding Organisations, Research Performing Organisations, and Research Data Infrastructures Colophon Table of contents June 2021 Practical Guide to Sustainable Research Data - Maturity Matrices for Research Funding Organisations, Foreword by Professor Roland Fischer and Professor Melanie Welham . .4 Research Performing Organisations, and Research Data Infrastructures Introduction . 6 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4769703 Authors: Tommaso Boccali (National Institute for Nuclear Physics), Anne Elisabeth Sølsnes (Research Council of Norway), Mark Thorley (UK Research & Innovation), Stefan Winkler-Nees (German Research How to use the maturity matrices? 11 Foundation) and Marie Timmermann (Science Europe). Research Funding Organisations Acknowledgments: The authors would also like to thank the members of the Science Europe Working (RFOs): Maturity matrix for 19 Group on Data Sharing and Supporting Infrastructures, in particular further members of the task group ‘Sustainable Research Data’ and the participants of the Science Europe workshop ‘Achieving Sustainable sustainable research data Research Data’ (January 2021). Research Performing Organisations Editing and Review: Giorgia Battiato, Iwan Groeneveld, Lorna Stokes, and Lidia Borrell-Damián (Science Europe). (RPOs): Maturity matrix for 29 sustainable research data For further information please contact the Science Europe Office: [email protected] Research Data Infrastructures (RDI): © Copyright Science
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition S Science Europe Rue De La Science, 14 1040 Brussels, Belgium Dear Members of Coalition S: Humanists, Akin to Our Coll
    Coalition S Science Europe Rue de la Science, 14 1040 Brussels, Belgium Dear members of Coalition S: Humanists, akin to our colleagues in all fields, greatly value openness. Communication of ideas and knowledge stands at the very heart of what we do as scholars, especially because of the uncertainties with which humanists grapple. Without open debate, placing our evidence on the table in an arena with many doorways, we lose the critical edge that marks our scholarship and our teaching. Plan S, however, as applied to the humanities, is likely to limit scholarly discourse, even close some doors. Its underlying assumptions and hence its path forward ignore significant differences among various disciplines in the realm of funding and publishing scholarship. Plan S, akin to much open access policy, assumes that all academic publishing has the same imperatives and exigencies as research in the biomedical and physical sciences. There are, however, important differences, including funding models, time value of research, and the structures and cultures of scholarly publishing. The American Historical Association joins our colleagues in other humanities disciplines in explaining how the Plan S bias toward article processing charge (APC)-funded “gold” journals will essentially close them off from the wider community of scholars. For historians, like scholars in many other humanities and social science disciplines, “openness” is an ethic that must refer to the production of scholarship as well as to its consumption. A historian doesn’t need an expensive laboratory, and is not likely to be supported by a grant that can include publication subsidies. “Open” means that our journals are open to publication by our colleagues who are independent scholars, faculty in community colleges and other higher education institutions that lack significant financial support for research, or employees of museums or even parks.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK's Role in Global Research
    The UK’s role in global research: How the UK can live up to its place in the world October 2020 Contents Principles and prerequisites 2 Introduction What does it mean to be a science superpower? Four principles for the UK to follow Essential prerequisites Chapter 1: The UK must be open 6 Make the UK a hub for global talent Maximise the benefits of outward mobility Create a ‘single front door’ for UK research Chapter 2: The UK must build networks across the world 10 Understand the importance of collaboration Secure the UK’s research relationship with Europe Forge new partnerships beyond Europe Chapter 3: The UK must use its resources strategically 14 Avoid duplication and inefficiency in infrastructure Ensure bilateral and multilateral funding is efficient Choose international partners strategically Chapter 4: The UK must use its influence for global good 18 Progress from ‘world-leading’ to global leadership Maximise diplomatic and informal influence Be a pioneer of regulatory diplomacy Next Steps 22 List of actions to be taken in 2020–21 Acknowledgments 24 Project participants (interviews and roundtables) Wellcome staff References 27 Principles and prerequisites Introduction The UK is rethinking its place in the modern world. The Government’s Global Britain agenda is beginning to take shape through its approach to trade, foreign policy, defence and security. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s ambition is for the UK to be a global science superpower, and research spending is now set to increase rapidly. The combination of these conversations and policy decisions will shape what kind of country the UK will be, and how it will position itself within the international research environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2019 Digest of Other White House
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2019 Digest of Other White House Announcements December 31, 2019 The following list includes the President's public schedule and other items of general interest announced by the Office of the Press Secretary and not included elsewhere in this Compilation. January 1 In the afternoon, the President posted to his personal Twitter feed his congratulations to President Jair Messias Bolsonaro of Brazil on his Inauguration. In the evening, the President had a telephone conversation with Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. During the day, the President had a telephone conversation with President Abdelfattah Said Elsisi of Egypt to reaffirm Egypt-U.S. relations, including the shared goals of countering terrorism and increasing regional stability, and discuss the upcoming inauguration of the Cathedral of the Nativity and the al-Fatah al-Aleem Mosque in the New Administrative Capital and other efforts to advance religious freedom in Egypt. January 2 In the afternoon, in the Situation Room, the President and Vice President Michael R. Pence participated in a briefing on border security by Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen for congressional leadership. January 3 In the afternoon, the President had separate telephone conversations with Anamika "Mika" Chand-Singh, wife of Newman, CA, police officer Cpl. Ronil Singh, who was killed during a traffic stop on December 26, 2018, Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson, and Stanislaus County, CA, Sheriff Adam Christianson to praise Officer Singh's service to his fellow citizens, offer his condolences, and commend law enforcement's rapid investigation, response, and apprehension of the suspect.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Science in the Trump Era Damage Done, Lessons Learned, and a Path to Progress
    The State of Science in the Trump Era Damage Done, Lessons Learned, and a Path to Progress {c S CenteD rfor Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists The State of Science in the Trump Era Damage Done, Lessons Learned, and a Path to Progress Jacob Carter Emily Berman Anita Desikan Charise Johnson Gretchen Goldman January 2019 © 2019 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Jacob Carter is a scientist in the Center for Science and Democ- racy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Emily Berman is the investigative researcher in the Center. Anita Desikan is a research analyst in the Center. Charise Johnson is a former research analyst in the Center. Gretchen Goldman is the research director of the Center. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS works to strengthen American democracy by advancing the essential role of science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate as a means to improve the health, security, and prosperity of all people. More information about UCS and the Center for Science and Democracy is available on the UCS website: www.ucsusa.org This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/ ScienceUnderTrump Designed by: Tyler Kemp-Benedict Cover photo: Audrey Eyring/UCS
    [Show full text]